criterionforum.org

HerrSchreck wrote:I fully understood that, but thanks for the concern.

Well, it was directed more at pemmican's confusion, but your post was conveniently closer to my mouse.

To try to get this back on topic, why on earth does the US have to wait till March?

zedz wrote:I can't promise to rise to the bait, but how does 'Hitch's homophobia' manifest itself in Psycho?

Well, it's not so cut-and-dried. Hitch's homophobia is clear in NXNW and STRANGERS, and in both films tied to the Mamma's boy trope you mention... but obviously I'm not saying that Norman Bates was gay or is meant as an attack on gay men. There IS the fact that he dresses in his mother's clothes, speaks in her voice, assumes her identity, and is terrified of women and what they represent, especially sexually; & his confusions are central to the "horror" of the film - "stepping out of the gender line is bad." Plus the idea that "gender issues = psychopath" can't but jar off the "homosexual = evil" thing in those other two films (especially since the Bates motel is located at the "end of the road of transgression" that Marion sets off on)... Add to which Anthony Perkins was bisexual, or gay, depending on where you read about it - and there's surely SOME cause for concern.

Or not? I mean, I'm pretty much straight, and my queer theory is half-assed at best. What do other folks think?

P.

According to Arthur Laurents in his invaluable Original Story By, Hitch wasn't homophobic at all. Far from it. When he was assigned the script of Rope (which involved a Page One Reqwrite of Patrick Hamilton's very British play) Laurents wondered if Hitch knew he was gay -- and quickly discovered that he did. Then he wondered if Hitch knew he was having an affair with Farley Granger -- and Hitch did.

Naughty Hitch originally asked Cary Grant to do the lead, but Grant turned him down. As the murder is committed by the professor's acolytes and presented to him as an act of "outing" it was just a tad too close to home for Cary. Granger and Dall would have guessed right that he's gay. Giving the part to James Stewart means that Granger and Dall guess wrong.

Dall was gay too, BTW, as was the film's production designer -- who was beaten in a gay-bashing incident during production.

EVEN THE SETS WERE GAY!!!

Well, "Hitch personally" wasn't really what I was speaking about, and ROPE, well, okay - but STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and NORTH BY NORTHWEST seem pretty deeply homophobic texts to me. Not you? (And before people go about pointing out that Patricia Highsmith, who wrote the novel on which the former was based, was a lesbian, note that the film ends very differently from the book).

Re: Norman Bates - I've taken the advice (of Michael?) was it and am stoned at home watching Psycho - just high enough to laugh aloud at the line "I'd rather stuff birds."

Maybe he's not gay after all.

P.

You're a flexible critic, Pem.

Or perhaps the nature of critique has changed here in the web-age, where critics have access to critique and get their minds changed almost immediately after posting a review.

I much prefer critics of the Ehrenstein stripe. For all his faults (and for all of mine, for all of everyones... maybe the more operative phrase here is idiosyncracies) I prefer critics of the Fully Formed, Empirical Personality Stripe. As crazy as they can drive me-- Kaels, Sarris', Rosenbaums, all the Eberts all of them.. yes Ehrensteins-- I know who they are (and so do they) and have too much brick in them to fluctuate due to instantaneous feedback... and so I can gauge a review based on that. It's a starting point with which to approach a film viz their eyeballs. If you become amorphous and can be chased from your own taste... how can anybody approach you as a critic?

Like if I know my friend in the midwest goes to some rank NYC pizzeria but is blown away based on his usual Dubuque Pizza Hut and says "Christ that Times Square Original Rays is just GREAT," I know his tastes are what they are and blah blah. However if it's a wiseguy around the corner from me in the Bronx and he says "Dude ya gotta eat the sausage olive pie at this fuckin Times Square Rays... believe it or not it's called Rays but the shit kicks ASS," I know it's worth checking out.

Maybe this deserves it's own thread: the aesthetics of critique?

I dunno - Ehrenstein just asserted boldly that Bresson was gay, without backing it up; a few people have taken exception to that, and it's not mentioned in three standard sources of online movie information... but he's ignored all that, simply sticking by his assertion. I mean, maybe he's right, I really don't know, but I suspect from looking over other posts of his he'd stick to his guns regardless. Doesn't that ALSO cast some suspicion on what he says?

I mean, as styles of criticism go, I'd rather be flexible than wrong.

I'll stand behind most of what I've said, tho': that there's a strong streak of homophobia in Hitchcock's films; that it's perverse for a gay man to remake PSYCHO without really querying that; that PICKPOCKET is sexy; and that PARANOID PARK is over-aestheticized, poorly acted, has the least appropriate use of Nino Rota I've seen, and introduces sexualized fluff/ queering and other irrelevantly gimmicky, look-at-me-I'm-Gus-van-Sant stuff to a story that would be better off without it, didn't need it, would be worth telling "straight." The themes touched on in the film (as I understand them, which is influenced by my having read the book) are simply too important for such a shallow, game-y, scattershot presentation; it gets in the way, detracts, confuses matters.

Tho' it's true an alternate reading of the film has occured to me, which may complicate things, I still didn't like it very much.

That said, hell, it's a discussion forum. We can't learn much from each other if we all just refuse to budge.

P.

pemmican wrote:Re: Norman Bates - I've taken the advice (of Michael?) was it and am stoned at home watching Psycho - just high enough to laugh aloud at the line "I'd rather stuff birds."

Maybe he's not gay after all.

Isn't there also the Ed Gein connection?

DE can correct me if he wants to, but I believe the only non-cinematic evidence of Bresson's being gay is some hearsay passed along by Rosenbaum that Bresson was a hustler in his teen years. He may have very well been gay or impartial, and several of his films are receptive to gay readings.

But everyone (gays, Catholics, atheists) desperately wants to claim Bresson as their own, so the grasp of the territorial pissings often exceeds the reach.

colinr0380 wrote:Isn't there also the Ed Gein connection?

For what it's worth... Robert Bloch's novel, which is credited as the basis for Stefano's script, was modeled on good ol' Ed, according to many interviews with Bloch.

pemmican wrote:Ehrenstein just asserted boldly that Bresson was gay, without backing it up; a few people have taken exception to that, and it's not mentioned in three standard sources of online movie information... but he's ignored all that, simply sticking by his assertion. I mean, maybe he's right, I really don't know

My evidence is the films themselves. Pickpocket is almost entirely about gay cruising. The scene in whihc Kassagi (the nom de crime of the professional pickpocket Bresson cast) "recognizes" the hero is absolute boilerplate gay. And as I have said Bressons eye for Les Boys is arguably more refined than Gus' -- espcially Antoine Monnier (Matisse's grandson) in Le Diable Probablement (a favorite of Dennis Cooper's) and Guillaume de Forets (son of Louis-Rene des Forets) in Quatre Nuits d'un Reveur

What Jonathan mentioned was that Bresson in his youth was a gigolo -- not a mere strett hustler. Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne is thus in many respects an apologia pro vita sua with Elena Labourdette as Bresson.

Like Proust, Bresson was very much attracted to lesbians -- frequently cast as his female leads.

speaking as a fag, i never really found hitch's work to really be homophobic. 'psycho' made me a bit uncomfortable as a teen with the whole drag issue, but i never really felt it was homophobic. and 'strangers on a train' is just gay as all can be. while i can understand the criticism of it as homophobia, it's homoeroticism far outweighs that, i would say. (for the record, i woudl say that van sant's version of bates was a hell of a lot gayer than hitch's. and i quite like the remake, even if saying so tends to kill the conversations.)

s.j. bagley wrote:speaking as a fag, i never really found hitch's work to really be homophobic. 'psycho' made me a bit uncomfortable as a teen with the whole drag issue, but i never really felt it was homophobic.

Same here. There's nothing gay about Norman. People who think cross-dressing or having "mommy issues" means gay have a lot to learn.

pemmican wrote:Tho' it's true an alternate reading of the film has occured to me, which may complicate things, I still didn't like it very much.

That said, hell, it's a discussion forum. We can't learn much from each other if we all just refuse to budge.

I don't wanta come off as Beating Up On You, and there's something absolutely enormous to be said about revisiting films that one had initially trashed. This links into the lobs to & fro over on the Kael thread andf zedz' well made points there. I for one always listen closely to elucidations of intelligently stated opinions that I don't agree w off the hip (yes I do). And I watch so many films that I almost never trust my initial impressions on those that do nothing to me on first sitdown. That is-- I don't dislike them nor do I writhe with pleasure... some films see me in a blank mood due to volume of intake.

On the other hand it just strikes me as as a disservice to, say, your readers over on your blog (who don't link to your near-instant modifications here) if you don't agree with on thursday the review you wrote on wednesday because of some dotcom chat.

Beyond you, pemmicam, just some general thoughts on the matter: I don't think of aesthetics as a democracy. I understand the beauty of aesthetic discussion, and the learning from one another etc. But I cherish rampant utter originality... this is what I love in these types of discussion. Fearlessly original thinking is what creates the retail value on these boards for me, and masses of them come together to provide many different takes on the same intangible aesthetic, not to winnow in and collaborate via little subtractions and additions and partial discarding of individual opinion to come up with a Group Yes concerning a film. I admire folks who stick to their guns, who have huge personalities, etc. I like Ehrenstein for the fact that, though I have to say I see no evidence of Bresson being gay, there's absolutely no way I could talk him out of his opinion. That's his take on Bresson. I read Ehrenstein and I get a fresh perspective completely alien from my own. Yet on a cold factual issue, (that sexual vapidity is a charge levelled at straight cinema constantly and so your claim that Gus' PP camera swooning w distracting undressing of a pretty kid for its' own pointless sake is perfectly valid and not unfair to gays) I think I may have made some headway.. zedz is another guy who has a fully formed intellect, he's incisive and confident in his views... I know who he is and look for the dudes' opinion on almost everything. David Hare sees gay subtext on an old lady on her deathbed (kidding), but the dude's writing is completely iconic to his own identity and the charisma, his taste is entirely his own.. that's why he got voted Member of Yr.

Also.. I secretly think that some of the most annoying-- even thickheaded to a fault-- personalities on this board (as I do think elsewhere and everywhere) are probably the most fiercely individual and dedicated artists, if they actually are artists. I'm thinking in terms of some of the younger members who tend to come and go and are probably students, some of whom I got into dustups with in the past. Privately I think those are the kids who are going to turn into something, because they feel what they feel so rampantly.

One can search for facts, cold hard facts, via discussion w those more informed... but imo a critic worth his salt doesn't negotiate empirical impressions, or subtextural readings.. overnite. I think, over and above knowing film, a critic should know his or her self. I think a subtext should reveal itself over time. A good equivalent is: in Harvard law school, they held up the legendary radical lawyer William Kunstler (Kuby's old master) as an example of the ideal lawyer... regardless whether or not the kid studying law was as conservative as Hitler, they were taught to admire Kunstler, to appreciate the theme running thru all his cases and therefore his career. They were taught to find out what they too were about, and to go out and do as Kunstler did, which is Act on what it was they were about... which should not be open to easy negotiation. The personality of the man became obvious just by looking at the cases he took on, many of which drove the vast majority of observers crazy as they felt his clients all deserved to be punished for such blatant criminal acts. But a dedication to deepseated beliefs overrode his feelings about his clients victims, etc.

Remember Pem this is general discussion on a subject I find interesting and crucial in today's age.. not really about you per se & not only in the arts but in personal identity in general. I don't see kids dividing up into cliques-- something equiv of the punkers, the hiphop kids, the jocks, the metal headbangers, gangbangers, graf writers of my day in the late 70's-early 80's-- that divided them along near-religious lines and saw them roaming in packs that would rumble. Society is verging towards a very polite, very healthy, ultra-ambitious homogenous mass.

David Ehrenstein wrote:My evidence is the films themselves. Pickpocket is almost entirely about gay cruising. The scene in whihc Kassagi (the nom de crime of the professional pickpocket Bresson cast) "recognizes" the hero is absolute boilerplate gay. And as I have said Bressons eye for Les Boys is arguably more refined than Gus' -- espcially Antoine Monnier (Matisse's grandson) in Le Diable Probablement (a favorite of Dennis Cooper's) and Guillaume de Forets (son of Louis-Rene des Forets) in Quatre Nuits d'un Reveur

What Jonathan mentioned was that Bresson in his youth was a gigolo -- not a mere strett hustler. Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne is thus in many respects an apologia pro vita sua with Elena Labourdette as Bresson.

Like Proust, Bresson was very much attracted to lesbians -- frequently cast as his female leads.

David, we have talked about your militant tendencies before...

Whereas no one can deny the homoerotic subtext of Pickpocket (especially strong in the Kassagi sequence) it is wrong to say that the film is entirely about gay cruising. Talk about selective reading! As for his eyes for the boys (debatable) what of his eyes for the girls (undeniable)? Is film not, after all, full of photogenic youths? Does this by your logic make him bisexual? The hustler rumours are pretty well known (was he an escort for men or women? is it important? should you really care?...). This is man who was married (as far as I know) at least twice. Calling him gay siting such scant evidence is really quite lamentable. Didn't this Bresson guy happen to make films? Or is this not that important?

With all due respect David, you strike me as one of those gays who is determined to prove that everyone else is also gay...it's just not necessary.

pemmican wrote:I dunno - Ehrenstein just asserted boldly that Bresson was gay, without backing it up; a few people have taken exception to that, and it's not mentioned in three standard sources of online movie information... but he's ignored all that, simply sticking by his assertion. I mean, maybe he's right, I really don't know, but I suspect from looking over other posts of his he'd stick to his guns regardless. Doesn't that ALSO cast some suspicion on what he says?

I mean, as styles of criticism go, I'd rather be flexible than wrong.

I'm very sympathetic to your position here, P., and have to say that I disagree heartily with Schreck on this point. (First time I've disagreed with Schreck in weeks, I think.) Over the past few years, I've come to value flexibility above all else in critical discourse. What's the point of exchanging ideas, otherwise?

As much as I value specific ideological readings of individual texts -- and I really do, insofar as they pose fascinating challenges to traditional (hetero, capitalist, Western, etc.) readings -- I always resist the impulse to universalize one reading for all of an artist's work. Reading a particular work through the lens of "Marxist" or "Orientalist" or "Queer" theory doesn't necessarily mean that the artist in question was always a "Marxist" or an "Orientalist" or a "Queer" (with or without knowing it). And having recently learned how difficult it really is to force a particular artist to always fit comfortably within a specific ideological framework (viz. some Said-influenced Orientalist readings of American authors), I've come to value a more flexible, historically informed method of critical inquiry. (In a different arena, I suppose that's why, in the past year, I've been so temperamentally drawn to a film artist like Renoir, whose body of work seems to embody that intellectual flexibility.)

At any rate, I think that P.'s, Schreck's, and my comments extend much further than what's really going on in this thread. And I certainly don't want to revisit the old was-he-or-wasn't-he arguments we've had about Bresson (and others) before. But a separate, general thread on modes (or sensibilities) of critical inquiry might prove extremely interesting.

EDIT: And I see Schreck also posted as I was writing this. I guess where I disagree with him is here:

I don't think of aesthetics as a democracy.

Depending on how you define "aesthetics," I think just the opposite. If we're talking about critical inquiry (i.e., aesthetic theory), then I think it should be democratic -- and pluralistic -- in execution.

HerrSchreck wrote:I don't think of aesthetics as a democracy.

I don't think one needs to be democratic, but I think it's admirable to be a little more scientific; i.e., ready and willing to alter your conclusion when you're faced with new or contrary evidence. That said, being scientific is also being skeptical, so I agree that one's opinion should not be changed overnight. The new evidence has to be examined and tested - which generally takes some time - and if it turns out to be sound, there's nothing dishonorable about changing one's mind.

HerrSchreck wrote:I don't see kids dividing up into cliques-- something equiv of the punkers, the hiphop kids, the jocks, the metal headbangers, gangbangers, graf writers of my day in the late 70's-early 80's-- that divided them along near-religious lines and saw them roaming in packs that would rumble. Society is verging towards a very polite, very healthy, ultra-ambitious homogenous mass.

Strange. I think cliques are absolutely defined by homogeny, so I see their erosion as a good thing. But maybe that's because my tastes are somewhat eclectic and I couldn't bear to commit to one channel at the exclusion of others.

Okay so I'll say it:

If you do not have some very definite ideas of what a film was about For You-- the critic--, if you do not have some very definite ideas about what a film Meant To You-- the critic-- you should not be in the business of telling the general public these things. You should not be a critic. If an artwork has no specific, defineable effect upon you, that you can commit to and elucidate for a reader.. and all you can do is raise a series of dry analytical possibilites which any halfway tuned in observer can extrapolate by allowing the brain to subjectively meander into the historical/analytical/subjective-aesthetic weeds... then the business of being a critic, for narrative melodrama (not Brakhage) is distinctly Not For You.

Any subjective piece of art presents a limitless horizon of potential meanings for a limitless number of spectators. Pointing out the fact of the endless possibilites and simply signaling to the reader I Am Aware of These POssibilities does no service to your subscriber. That is academia for its' own sake and masturbation I daresay that moots the whole creative impulse of the work itself To Have An Effect On The Viewer.

An artwork is designed to provoke an emotional response. It should mean something to you, move you in a personal way (if it succeeds). If you love a woman, or you think a woman is beautiful because you are a leg man, no man should be able to step in and say for you "She most certainly is NOT beautiful owing to her legs.. she is beautiful because her fucking tits are so firm they rash the bottom of her chin." You are a leg man and no dry analysis of the spectrum of other fetishes can moot the fact that a well turned leg in bitch pumps flumps out a bigger boner in you than a pile of JUGGS & D-CUP scattered across your musty ottoman.

I like an identifiable personality behind a critique. I like a developed intelligence which is the result of its' own journey... I want a person passionate enough to commit to their own inclinations. Art is not a science, and I don't believe the critics job is to say "This film meant nothing specific to me, nor should it to you, because there are far too many interpretive options available to commit to merely one, and because foresight demands recognition of the fact that I will be somewhat changed ten years from now thus making a comission here fleeting and transitory.." Generally a filmmaker set out to make a film for a reason, that he employed a set of means with some degree of skill and success or lack thereof, and the critic's job is to decide what that reason was, whether or not the filmmaker succeeded or not, and pass that along to a potential viewer. The same way the artist can flop right into a petrifying Creative Block by excessive meandering in the woods of Possibility and Options... i e impeding the creative flow with a mass of frontbrain self-consciousness-- so does the critic lose sight of his job by noodling in hyper excessive academia that is nowhere to be seen onscreen. This sucks the fire and joy and rage and passion out of the visceral experience of watching a film. This is how we get into these thickets present here in this thread "Such and such was WHAT? Were we looking at the same film?"

I think we need to seperate out what it is we are discussing here-- film theory, or film reviewing. It is the professors job to provoke thought, to linger excessively over a film and an auteur's thru-line in his own work and how it fits thru a century of film. A critics job viz a single film for the common reader is far more streamlined and concrete... and involves a HELL of a lot more opinion than the former.

EDIT: (just saw this)

Kirkinson wrote:Strange. I think cliques are absolutely defined by homogeny, so I see their erosion as a good thing. But maybe that's because my tastes are somewhat eclectic and I couldn't bear to commit to one channel at the exclusion of others.

I'm not sure I follow how "cliques are defined by homogeny" unless you're simply stating the simple fact that variations on the norm exist because of the fact of the existence of the norm... but how one could conclude that Present Day Diversification is proven by the lack of variations on the norm is a little odd to me. I see the erosion a result of market forces, present day politics, etc.

And of course one doesn't have to tie ones taste in dvd's to social observations.. though I will say those who know you best Kirk could without a doubt tell me what your tastes are, what you feel passionately about.. "O yea I know Kirko, don't let him fool ya-- when he was in tenth grade the kid usedta cover his walls with..."

Everybody is about something... everybody has tastes, inclinations.[/quote]

Sorry, watching "Paranoid" felt like "Punishment" (the latter being an excellent comedy).

Anyway, here's the article about Bresson trying to pork Anne W.: Wiazemsky: Bresson Was After My Ass Too

Mrs. Bresson is extremely angry about Anne Wiazemsky's book.

Kirkinson wrote:Strange. I think cliques are absolutely defined by homogeny, so I see their erosion as a good thing. But maybe that's because my tastes are somewhat eclectic and I couldn't bear to commit to one channel at the exclusion of others.

A final thought... and we are going to get a bit basic and a little corny here:

Being fanatically devoted to something is how one becomes good at what one does. And is positively how one distinguishes one's self among a mass of competitors, and imitators: devotion to the inner voice, originality, commission to an interior obsession. In the arts, trying to be a jack of all-styles with no identity will not get you very far. Bresson, Tarkovsky, Sirk, Murnau, Sternberg and on and on... one knows who one is seeing almost instantaneously.

Every artist, tradesman, craftsman, (yes lawyer, yes critic) worth his salt follows an inner voice. And as to aesthetics being a democracy-- many of the greatest directors were dictatorial creeps who enraged their employees (since we're on the subject, someone say Claude Leydu?). A film set with the most sublime results can absolutely be a dictatorship...

HerrSchreck wrote:I think we need to seperate out what it is we are discussing here-- film theory, or film reviewing. It is the professors job to provoke thought, to linger excessively over a film and an auteur's thru-line in his own work and how it fits thru a century of film. A critics job viz a single film for the common reader is far more streamlined and concrete... and involves a HELL of a lot more opinion than the former.

I think this is a fair distinction to make, and perhaps I was guilty of conflating the two to some degree. I'd agree that part (part, mind you) of a professional critic/reviewer's job is provocation. A good critic worth his or her salt is supposed to evoke strong feelings in readers simply in order to get them up off their asses in order to watch something worthwhile. Strong, clearly stated, even logically uneven opinions are certainly one way of doing this, and if they serve their purpose, so be it. That's a good thing.

If you do not have some very definite ideas of what a film was about For You-- the critic--, if you do not have some very definite ideas about what a film Meant To You-- the critic-- you should not be in the business of telling the general public these things. You should not be a critic. If an artwork has no specific, defineable effect upon you, that you can commit to and elucidate for a reader.. and all you can do is raise a series of dry analytical possibilites which any halfway tuned in observer can extrapolate by allowing the brain to subjectively meander into the historical/analytical/subjective-aesthetic weeds... then the business of being a critic, for narrative melodrama (not Brakhage) is distinctly Not For You.

Any subjective piece of art presents a limitless horizon of potential meanings for a limitless number of spectators. Pointing out the fact of the endless possibilites and simply signaling to the reader I Am Aware of These POssibilities does no service to your subscriber. That is academia for its' own sake and masturbation I daresay that moots the whole creative impulse of the work itself To Have An Effect On The Viewer.

An artwork is designed to provoke an emotional response. It should mean something to you, move you in a personal way (if it succeeds).

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you're saying here. At the same time, however, I think there's a difference between explaining how a movie provoked a specific emotional response from you on one hand and on the other allowing a specific ideology to dictate and/or limit one's range of possible responses to a film before the fact. It's the latter, ideologically-driven sort of criticism that I find off-putting, in that it seems to impose external meanings upon the film (or any work of art). And at its worst, it can foreclose further discussion or force a critic to rationalize new evidence that might not jive with his/her pre-existing point of view.

It's really that openness to taking the work of art on its own terms that I was trying to get at by talking about the democratic or pluralistic approach to aesthetic criticism. And I don't see it as being necessarily dry, impersonal, or masturbatory. I'm not saying that the critic has to perform a series of analytical approaches before I take him/her seriously. But I do tend to prefer critics who take a smorgasbord approach to the tools of criticism (i.e., they're willing to take one point of view for one film and another for another, as the films themselves call for). I guess I also like critics who tend to make their own acts of interpretation fairly transparent -- that is, they reveal how they arrived at their opinion, even if they waffled back-and-forth at times. I even find that fairly personal.

And by the way, there are actually quite a few members of this forum who take this sort of approach and who, I'd hope, have the respect of the rest of us. I'm thinking particularly of folks like Tommaso and Gregory, who can state their views clearly and persuasively. (At least, they make me think.) Yet they're perfectly reasonable in tone and open to revisiting their own ideas in light of conversation. I don't suppose either of them are professional critics, but I'd read them if they were.

HerrSchreck,

There is more in your responses that I agree with than disagree, so I don't want to turn this into too big a deal, especially when it has so little to do with the discussion. But quickly, my problem with cliques are their exclusionary nature, the "us vs. them" mentality, and the way they discourage deviations from their own established dogma; when I suggested they are defined by homogeny, I was talking about homogeny within the clique. And I never meant to suggest the decline of cliques proved diversification. My ideal is individuals competing and cooperating with each other. I'm very much in favor of cultures and sub-cultures forming around people with similar interests, motives, needs, concerns, etc. What I am against is unthinking adherence to a perceived norm at the expense of diversity among individuals, and the way such adherence encourages the feeling that the other group is your enemy.

HerrSchreck wrote:Being fanatically devoted to something is how one becomes good at what one does. And is positively how one distinguishes one's self among a mass of competitors, and imitators: devotion to the inner voice, originality, commission to an interior obsession. In the arts, trying to be a jack of all-styles with no identity will not get you very far. Bresson, Tarkovsky, Sirk, Murnau, Sternberg and on and on... one knows who one is seeing almost instantaneously.

Every artist, tradesman, craftsman, (yes lawyer, yes critic) worth his salt follows an inner voice. And as to aesthetics being a democracy-- many of the greatest directors were dictatorial creeps who enraged their employees (since we're on the subject, someone say Claude Leydu?). A film set with the most sublime results can absolutely be a dictatorship...

I am in complete agreement with all of these statements.

Some responses:

drakula wrote:Alex did in fact have a gay sex scene with Jared in the original script.

Source for that? Very interesting.

Michael wrote:There's nothing gay about Norman. People who think cross-dressing or having "mommy issues" means gay have a lot to learn.

...which is something I took pains to make clear I was not saying.
Quoting myself, earlier: "I'm not saying that Norman Bates was gay or is meant as an attack on gay men." My point was that if we accept - and it interests me that some people don't seem to - that other Hitchcock texts have a streak of homophobia in them (whatever its source - Hitch, the culture), we have to also include Psycho in that consideration. In Strangers on a Train and North by Northwest, we both have men too much under the sway of the female (ex-wife in one, mother in the other), confronted with Evil Homos who have to be defeated or brought into line (along with the protagonist's "domination by the female") so that the train can zoom into the tunnel like it's supposed to. The dramatic thrust of both films can be read as a metaphor for "defeating the fag within." Likewise, in Psycho, Norman, too much under the sway of his mother, is also guilty of keeping the couple apart (permanently), and his dangerous deviation from normalcy has to be brought into line. It's a lot more complex, but it partakes of SOME of the same pattern, even tho' Norman is not gay.

(Edited to add: David, you posted while I was writing that... hope it suffices.)

tryavna wrote:I've come to value flexibility above all else in critical discourse. What's the point of exchanging ideas, otherwise?

To be honest, I also think it really makes a difference where one is posting! I'm prepared to be a lot more flexible on a discussion forum than I would be in other situations; I'll try on ideas, explore other people's views, etc - I don't really regard this as a permanent and final repository of my opinions. If someone can make me think about a given text in a new way - well, actually, THAT'S WHY I COME TO THIS FORUM, to have my thoughts provoked.

Besides, things simply become boring without some give-and-take: I've visited boards and threads where people just lock in and bang their heads against each other's to no end, and everyone goes home unenlightened. No point to it at all, except chest beating.

At the same time, I do agree with HerrSchrek that a critic should have some views that he or she stands by. I take some exception to his characterization of me, for the record -

HerrSchreck wrote:it just strikes me as as a disservice to, say, your readers over on your blog (who don't link to your near-instant modifications here) if you don't agree with on thursday the review you wrote on wednesday because of some dotcom chat.

Where have I done that? I made one provisional statement that a reading of the film that did NOT occur to me when watching it COULD change my reaction to certain things in it, and bears further thought. It wasn't even something I got off this board, and it doesn't leave me recanting my original reactions. Paranoid Park annoyed the hell out of me.

Actually, if I were to modify any views here - Psycho is a lot more interesting than I'd given it credit for being. Thanks to people (Michael, etc) for having spoken up about it - it was very interesting, and indeed, much gayer than Hitch's...

P.

davidhare wrote:Calling the homophobic card on any gay character who is "flawed" or in some other way less than perfect is a now routine strategy for mostly younger gay activists who think every gay movie should be like the interminably naff Making Love (or worse.)

Ewww. I had more sympathy for Kate Jackson than the guys, that can't be a good thing for a movie that's supposed to center around the guys' first taste of gay love but it presented the wife as the biggest victim, I felt. The movies approach to the "taboo" was too clinical for my taste. Harry Hamlin was a lot hotter in Clash of the Titans - my first "porn".

Young gay activists should think every gay movie should be like Mala Noche.

pemmican wrote:My point was that if we accept - and it interests me that some people don't seem to - that other Hitchcock texts have a streak of homophobia in them (whatever its source - Hitch, the culture), we have to also include Psycho in that consideration. In Strangers on a Train and North by Northwest, we both have men too much under the sway of the female (ex-wife in one, mother in the other), confronted with Evil Homos who have to be defeated or brought into line (along with the protagonist's "domination by the female") so that the train can zoom into the tunnel like it's supposed to. The dramatic thrust of both films can be read as a metaphor for "defeating the fag within." Likewise, in Psycho, Norman, too much under the sway of his mother, is also guilty of keeping the couple apart (permanently), and his dangerous deviation from normalcy has to be brought into line. It's a lot more complex, but it partakes of SOME of the same pattern, even tho' Norman is not gay.

I'm sorry but what you wrote is very vague to me. Don't you think straight guys can get "too much under the sway of the female" also?